And you suggest that I might have limits about free speech?

I love the blog. I added you to my digg account to bookmark it for later……

LawIsCool: Not deleted. Still in queue and under review. They don’t seem to be adding to anything remotely related to law.

LawIsCool: Congratulations on learning classical Arabic, and reading the text in light of all the commentary that it goes with. Now how the heck did you come up with that interpretation considering everything that goes contrary to it? You do realize that substantial numbers of Jews became Muslim, not by force, especially during the early era of Islam? And you do realize that they have enjoyed far more protections than there than they ever did in Europe? But again, that’s not legal commentary.
The fact that you retain such gross distortions is only a testament to the type of hate propaganda that has existed for some time against this group, and in nearly every case is completely groundless, or not appropriate qualified (“of courses” are not sufficient in themselves).

LawIsCool: We find it pointless to speculate on hypotheticals. However, if Life of Brian was resulting in marginalization and discrimination of the group in question, and impossibility in the context of Canada, we could entertain the notion. We’re on the side of Canadian law, and that’s probably a good place to be.

Most Sincerely,

Mike from Australia

LawIsCool:
Mike,
Thank you. We don’t personally define people as communities, but the law does prevent hate speech “against a person or a group or class of person.” And again, it’s not us that protect the rights of the communities you list, but our constitution. And we do find it strange that you pick those two as distinct from the others, as there is very little material difference between any of them for the purpose of the law.
We would politely claim that we do know a little about what we are talking about through extensive exposure to many of the diverse communities of Canada, and think that despite what you may have heard, you have been misinformed. A major source of such misinformation are major media sources that perpetuate stereotypes and myths that have very little or no theological backing. This is a law site, and not a theological one, or we would expound further.
People are entitled to believe whatever they want, including that the world is flat, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. This includes the misconceptions that you hold about other communities, as well as beliefs that other communities hold that you do not agree with. By doing so we help create a more pluralistic, diverse, and tolerant society.
The problem in this case are that misconceptions that some have are being published in major media without any rebuttal, and are possibly being infringing on the rights of others; an issue that will be resolved henceforth. But it is the complainants’ right, even if mistaken, to take this to a tribunal. And the overwhelming opposition to this specific group asserting the same rights as other Canadians only reinforces the notion that such imbalances in our society exist.

LawIsCool: Perhaps. We just find the choice of this instance to protest as being highly suspect. Typically these things are interpreted in their social context to protect the vulnerable, so the more these Steyn fans spew virulent hatred (just check their sites), the higher the likelihood of success of tribunal cases on the subject. But they don’t get those kind of things…

You are right, Voltaire would have come under scrutiny for these statements in Dictionnaire Philosophique, where he said Jews were,

…the most abominable people in the world
…In short we find them only ignorant and barbarous people with long united and most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred of every people by whom they are tolerated…

Even Napoleon, often heralded as champion of the Jews because he let them out of the ghettos and wanted to rebuild Solomon’s temple, was hardly “enlightened.”
He advocated for forced marriage of 1/3 Jewish population to non-Jews to assimilate them.
“It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them,” said Napoleon.

In fact, Arthur Hertzberg states claims that the origins of modern anti-Semitism can be found in the French Enlightenment. Herzberg claims that anti-Semitism is less due to Christian ideology than it is to Libertarianism.

Other “enlightened” activity during this era included the massacres in Ukraine during the Chmielnicki Uprising. Bohemia expelled, then let Jews back in, but forced them to give up Hebrew and Yiddish.

Hence, we do not find that the “enlightenment” in itself was necessarily moving towards a more liberal society for anyone other than the Christian church.

Purpose
2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

RICHARD WARMAN v. TERRY TREMAINE
Warman v. Wilkinson
Warman v. Kouba
Warman v. Bahr
Warman v. Kyburz
Warman v. Warman
Warman v. Kulbashian
Richard Warman v. Tomasz Winnicki
RICHARD WARMAN V. Marc Lemire
Warman v. Harrison
Warman v. Beaumont
LeDeuff v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission
Schnell v. Machiavelli Associates Emprize Inc. and J. Micka
Khaki v. Canadian Liberty Net
Citron v. Zündel
Hay v. Cameco-A Canadian Mining and Engergy Corportation
Smith et al. v. Western Guard Party
Bhinder v. Canadian National Railways

(Is Richard Warman available for comment? Please contact us if so.)

LawIsCool: Actually, no. Both have explicitly denied that it does not have such authority, through the tribunals established in s. 48, to address issues that have been raised against them. As Gary Wise says, Levant recently “refuse[d] to acknowledge the lawful authority of the Commission itself, throughout”.

The Act does have a section that appears quite pertinent:

Orders relating to hate messages
54. (1) If a member or panel finds that a complaint related to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make only one or more of the following orders:
(a) an order containing terms referred to in paragraph 53(2)(a);
(b) an order under subsection 53(3) to compensate a victim specifically identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice; and
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars.

Again, we’re not involved in the case, so we only know what has been publicly announced. But the complainants do not appear to be seeking monetary damages, even though that would be supported under the Act. More likely they are seeking this:
(a) that the person cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from occurring in future, including

The SCC is obviously not the only authority in Canada to define unlawful expression, but it is the final one.

Why not? Because they have to go through appellate courts first. And before that, tribunals. S. 13(1),(2), provide interpretations for hate speech that tribunals mentioned in the Act should use. And we’ve already provided case law on the subject as well, including the definition provided by the SCC. See Hatred and Contempt Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was actually written by one of the complainants. (We really wish people would read the material before commenting, but that’s fine).

They may not be able to be held in contempt of tribunals, but any court reviewing these videos is not likely to look upon the defendant favourably.

LawIsCool: We would love to see the case go before the SCC. But then we’re biased, we’re law students and would love to see the judicial analysis of the issue for the academic merit alone (and not because of any vested interest in the case). We do agree , this is probably the only way the CHRT/CHRC would be disbanded or limited in scope given its extensive history.

Levant and Steyn put themselves in an awkward position though. Filing for review by the FCC does validate the legitimacy of CHRT/CHRC to express an opinion on the subject up to this point, something they have been adamant it does not. Failing to file however omits the opportunity for any legitimate challenge. But you can only challenge an authority in court that you acknowledge has authority to begin with.

And as for your thanks, we appreciate the gesture but we do not deserve it. It’s probably best you direct them to the complainants themselves, as we have nothing to do with the case.